Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T22:57:26.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Advocacy strategies for human rights: the campaign for the moratorium on the death penalty

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2016

Raffaele Marchetti
Raffaele Marchetti*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and School of Government, Luiss Guido Carli, Roma, Italy
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article examines the different strategies used by transnational actors in advocacy against the death penalty. In particular, it studies the strategies adopted by the transnational campaign for the moratorium on capital punishment in view of the United Nations General Assembly vote of 2007 and subsequent years (2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014). The article shows that a variety of different strategies are used in the organizational, institutional, and communicative domains. Within the broader debate on norm diffusion, this article sheds light on the under-investigated area of specific tactics, which include horizontal networking, multilayered political lobbying, reason-based framing, and emotion-based story-telling, deployed by transnational activists to induce key actors to change their policy preference.

Keywords

advocacycivil societyItalian foreign policyglobal governancedeath penaltyUnited Nations
Type
Research Article
Information
Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , November 2016 , pp. 355 - 378
Copyright
© Società Italiana di Scienza Politica 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amnesty International (2005), La pena di morte nel mondo, Torina: EGA Editore.Google Scholar
Amnesty International (2007), ‘La risoluzione per una moratoria sulle esecuzioni all’Assemblea Generale delle Nazioni Unite – Una valutazione’. Sezione Italiana, Rome.Google Scholar
Bandy, J. and Smith, J. (eds) (2004), Coalitions Across Borders: Transnational Protest and the Neoliberal Order, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Bantekas, I. and Hodgkinson, P. (2000), ‘Capital punishment at the United Nations: recent developments’, Criminal Law Forum 11(1): 23–34.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R., De Boef, S.L. and Boydstun, A.E. (2008), The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bob, C. (2012), The Right Wing and the Clash of World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burgerman, S. (1998), ‘Mobilizing principles: the role of transnational activists in promoting human rights principles’, Human Rights Quarterly 20(4): 905–923.Google Scholar
Busby, J.W. (2007), ‘Bono made Jesse Helms cry: Jubilee 200, debt relief, and moral action in international politics’, International Studies Quarterly 51(2): 247–275.Google Scholar
Busby, J.W. (2010), Moral Movements and Foreign Policy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, R.C. (2010), ‘Governing the global agenda: gate-keeping and issue adoption in transnational advocacy networks’, in D.D. Avant, M. Finnemore and S. Sell (eds), Who Governs the Globe?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 202–237.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2013), ‘EU guidelines on death penalty. 8416/13 (COHOM 64, PESC 403, OC 213)’. Council of the European Union, Brussels.Google Scholar
Crawford, N.C. (2000), ‘The passion of world politics: propositions on emotion and emotional relationships’, International Security 24(4): 116–156.Google Scholar
della Porta, D. and Diani, M. (1999), Social Movements: An Introduction, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
della Porta, D. and Tarrow, S. (eds) (2005), Transnational Protest and Global Activism, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) (2013), ‘Delivering on the death penalty’. Europeaid, Brussels.Google Scholar
European External Action Service (2013), ‘Background: the death penalty and the EU’s policy on its abolition’. Department for Human Rights and Democracy, Brussels.Google Scholar
Ferrari, L. (2003), ‘Transnational advocacy against capital punishment: a role for the holy see’, International Journal of Human Rights 7(2): 28–41.Google Scholar
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2011), ‘HMG strategy for abolition of the death penalty 2010-2015’. Human Rights and Democracy Department, London.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1974), Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organisation of the Experience, New York: Harper Colophon.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J., Jasper, J.M. and Polletta, F. (eds) (2001), Passionate Politics. Emotions and Social Movements, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hodgkinson, P. and Schabas, W.A. (eds) (2004), Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, R. (1976), Perception and Misperception in International Politics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keck, M. and Sikkink, K. (1998), Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kirchmeier, J.L. (2002), ‘Another place beyond here: the death penalty moratorium movement in the United States’, University of Colorado Law Review 73(1): 1–116.Google Scholar
Kissack, R.E. (2008), Outreach, Overstretch or Underhand? Strategies for Crossregional Consensus in Support of a UN General Assembly Resolution on a Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty, London: LSE-European Foreign Policy Unit, Working Paper No. 2008/2.Google Scholar
Kohler-Koch, B. and Quittkat, C. (2013), De-Mystification of Participatory Democracy: EU-Governance and Civil Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lebow, R.N. (2008), A Cultural Theory of International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marazzitti, M. (2010), ‘Diplomazia umanitaria contro la pena di morte’, in R.M. della Rocca (ed.), Fare pace. La Comunità di Sant’Egidio negli scenari internazionali, Roma: Leonardo International, pp. 293–324.Google Scholar
Marazzitti, M. (2015), Life. Da Caino al Califfato: verso un mondo senza pena di morte, Milan: Mondadori.Google Scholar
Marchetti, R. (2009), ‘Mapping alternative models of global politics’, International Studies Review 11(1): 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchetti, R. (2013), ‘Civil society-government synergy and normative power Italy’, The International Spectator 48(4): 102–118.Google Scholar
Marchetti, R. (2016a), Global Strategic Engagement. The Rules of Global Governance, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Marchetti, R. (ed.) (2016b), Partnership in International Policy Making: Civil Society and Public Institutions in Global and European Affairs, London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Mathias, M.D. (2013), ‘The sacralization of the individual: human rights and the abolition of the death penalty’, American Journal of Sociology 118(5): 1246–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, D., McCarthy, J.D. and Zald, M.N. (1996), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, J.D. and Zald, M.N. (1977), ‘Resources mobilization and social movements: a partial theory’, American Journal of Sociology 82(6): 1212–1241.Google Scholar
McGann, A. and Sandholtz, W. (2012), ‘Patterns of death penalty abolition, 1960-2005: domestic and international factors’, International Studies Quarterly 56(2): 275–289.Google Scholar
Ministère des Affaires étrangères (2012), Campagne mondiale pour l’abolition universelle de la peine de mort-Dossier de presse, Paris: Republique Francaise.Google Scholar
Missoni, E. and Alesani, D. (2013), Management of International Institutions and NGOs: Frameworks, Practices and Challenges, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Murphy, C.N. and Yates, J.A. (2011), ‘ISO 26000, alternative standards, and the “social movement of engineers” involved with standard-setting’, in S. Ponte, P. Gibbon, J. and Vestergaard (eds), Governing Through Standards: Origins, Drivers, and Limitations, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 159–183.Google Scholar
Nessuno tocchi Caino (2007), ‘La campagna del Partito Radicale e di Nessuno tocchi Caino per la moratoria ONU’, in Nessuno tocchi Caino (ed.), La pena di morte nel mondo. Rapporto 2007, Roma: Nessuno tocchi Caino, pp. 218–275.Google Scholar
Neumayer, E. (2008), ‘Death penalty: the political foundations of the global trend towards abolition’, Human Rights Review 9(2): 241–268.Google Scholar
Orenstein, M.A. (2008), Privatizing Pensions: The Transnational Campaign for Social Security Reform, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, R. (1998), ‘Reversing the gun sights: transnational civil society targets land mines’, International Organization 52(3): 613–644.Google Scholar
Robert, P. and Alberman, D. (2007), ‘European initiative for democracy and human rights. Evaluation on the abolition of death penalty projects – final report’. Europeaid No. 116548/C/SV, Brussels.Google Scholar
Sculier, C. (2010), Towards a Universal Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty. Strategies, Arguments and Perspectives, Chatillon: World Coalition Against Death Penalty (WCADP).Google Scholar
Sell, S. and Prakash, A. (2004), ‘Using ideas strategically: the contest between business and NGO networks in intellectual property rights’, International Studies Quarterly 48: 143–175.Google Scholar
Senato della Repubblica (2002), ‘Indagine conoscitiva sui livelli e i meccanismi di tutela dei diritti umani, vigenti nella realtà internazionale’. Commissione straordinaria per la tutela e la promozione dei diritti umani (XIV Legislatura, seduta di mercoledì 25 settembre), Rome.Google Scholar
Snow, D.A. and Benford, R.D. (1988), ‘Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization’, in B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi and S. Tarrow (eds), From Structure to Action: Comparing Social Movement Research Across Cultures, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 137–196.Google Scholar
Snow, D.A., Rochford, E.B., Worden, S.K. and Benford, R.D. (1986), ‘Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation’, American Sociological Review 51(4): 464–481.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. (2005), The New Transnational Activism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (1971), ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on capital punishment’, A/RES/2857/XXVI. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (1977), ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on capital punishment’, A/RES/32/60. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2007), ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty’, A/RES/62/149. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2008a), ‘Moratoriums on the use of the death penalty: report of the Secretary-General’, A/63/293. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2008b), ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty’, A/RES/63/168. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2010), ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty’, A/RES/65/206. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2011), ‘Note verbale from the permanent mission of Egypt to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General’, A/65/779. United Nations, New York, NY.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2012), ‘Moratoriums on the use of the death penalty: report of the Secretary-General’, A/67/226. United Nations, New York, NY.Google Scholar
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) (2014), ‘Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on the moratorium on the use of the death penalty’, A/RES/69/186. United Nations, New York.Google Scholar
Volkan, V.D., Montville, J.V. and Julius, D.A. (1991), The Psychodynamics of International Relationships, Vol. 2, Unofficial Diplomacy at Work, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Wendt, A. (1995), ‘Constructing international politics’, International Security 20(1): 71–81.Google Scholar
Widmaier, W.W. and Park, S. (2012), ‘Differences beyond theory: structural, strategic, and sentimental approaches to normative change’, International Studies Perspectives 13(2): 123–134.Google Scholar
Yanacopulos, H. (2005), ‘The strategies that bind: NGO coalitions and their influence’, Global Networks 5(1): 93–110.Google Scholar
Zamparutti, E. (ed.) (2007), ‘La pena di morte nel mondo’ Rapporto 2007 Nessuno tocchi Caino, Hands off Cain, Rome: Reality Book.Google Scholar